Re: [blml] R$BqG(B._:_Re:__The_sixth_sick__sheik'_s_sixth_sheep_is_sick[SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

Robert Geller wrote:
> Alain Gottcheiner $B$5$s$O=q$-$^$7$?(B:
>> At 16:47 4/10/2007 +0200, you wrote:
>>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote among other things:
>>>
>>> Whenever both possible reactions (here, knowingly creating MI or
>>> knowingly creating UI) are badly wrong according to the book,
>>>
>>> My comment is plainly:
>>>
>>> I fail to see any conflict. Maybe you can enlighten me on where in the laws
>>> it is stated that "knowingly creating UI" is an offence?
>> Sure. 73B1. Last item specifically mentions explanations.
> 
> Hold it right there!  Let's look at the text of 73B1 in full:
> ************************************************
> B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners 
> 1. Gratuitous Information 
> Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are 
> made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not 
> asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to 
> them. 
> ************************************************
> 
> This says (if we leave out the intermediate stuff)
> 
> "Partners shall not communicate <snip> through <snip> explanations given or not 
> given to [the opponents]. "
> 
> A little ambiguous, to be sure, and a rewording might be useful.  But a
> commonsense reading is that it is wrong to INTENTIONALLY pass info
> to pard under the guise of making an explanation.  On the other hand,
> if the correct and legitimate answer to a question INADVERTENTLY
> and INCIDENTALLY passes info to pard, this is (IMO) not a violation
> of 73B1, but is UI.  However, Ui is only a problem if pard could have used
> it, in which case there can be a score adjustment.....  Several people
> have alreaady pointed this out.
> 

This is all just trying to prove a point that is not even important.

You ask for a law that says "thou shalt not give UI". I give you two 
such laws. You take one of them, and dissect it. You use a somewhat 
dubious interpretation to come up with what amounts to "thou shalt not 
willingly give UI". You happily forget that the law on UI does not 
distinguish between wilfully given and accidental UI - both are dealt 
with in the same way.

But what you are left with is the other lawnumber that I cited, and 
which is very very clear on this matter: "nor may he indicate in any 
manner that a mistake has been made".

Many of you have the same problem. You start with a preconceived idea, 
and read the laws with that preconception. You use the laws which 
support your case, interpret a few others in that light, and forget 
the laws that go against your opinion. You really need to look at this 
problem with a little recul.

Don't counter this with "you too, Herman", please. I have looked at 
all the laws and have seen that there is a dilemma. Many of you still 
look at this and ask "what's the problem?". There is a problem, and it 
has two solutions. I believe that both solutions are workable - you 
keep saying that mine is illegal. I believe that my solution is a 
better one, and I have five reasons why this is so. I have thought 
about this problem. Please listen to me, and don't dismiss me with the 
usual "there's Herman again".

> I think that in the 2019 laws (well, that's a little pessimistic, 2018 laws)
> this could usefully be reworded.   But (IMO) there's not a real problem
> now (unless one strains at gnats).
> 

I don't believe there is a problem either. I will happily continue to 
play according to the dWs, and accept the rulings, and get better 
final scores than followers of the Majority School. And I will not be 
acting illegally - despite what you may think about it.

As TD, I will happily give rulings to followers of dWS and MS alike. 
My rulings will be the same as the yours (yes, they will).

As a coach, I will continue to give the dWS advice to my players. They 
will do as I do, and they will get better final scores than your 
players; and they will not have acted illegally (apart from the 
infraction of MI, which will be ruled upon). Don't say that your 
players will have acted less illegally, because they will have given 
UI, which will be ruled upon. We agree to disagree on which is the 
worse infraction, but meanwhile we will rule on the infractions. And 
we will rule the same way (as TDs).

I don't believe the laws need to clear this up. The better way of 
clearing up this mess is for the WBF to come out on my side. Many 
people would not find that acceptable - so maybe it's better if they 
stay quiet for another 10 years.

If the WBF would wish, OTOH, to clear up the mess by coming out on the 
side of the MS, please don't do so before having read my five 
arguments why this would be a bad thing.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html